One of the most contentious debates touring the running world for the past few years has been over the traditional approach to matching shoe categories with running strides.  The well-established (but, apparently, never scientifically proven) method of using your degree of pronation to assign you to the motion control, stability, neutral, or, sometimes, cushioned shoe category is being questioned like never before, as scientific studies disproving any correlation between shoe type, stride style, and injury rate are mounting.

I am not going to go into the gory details of these studies in this post; Pete Larson has done an outstanding job of summarizing the studies and providing valuable links on Runblogger, most specifically in his post on the “crumbling” of the pronation control paradigm. Pete also provides links to other summaries and to study abstracts, so I won’t repeat those here.  What got me interested in this topic, other than my own recent shoe buying experience, whereby I shifted away from stability to neutral shoes, was Pete’s more recent post on Nike’s role in a recent shoe performance study.  When my two passions – running and business strategy – collide in this manner, I can’t help but to do a bit more research and hypothesizing myself.

My initial reaction to Pete’s post, stated in my own poorly researched comment, was that since Nike was never a perceived leader in running shoes, they may certainly see this as an opportunity to gain advantage.  I had assumed that Nike considered the running shoe market as secondary to areas such as soccer, basketball, and golf, as it was likely a smaller market for them.  After a little more research, all I can say is “Wow, were my preconceptions wrong.”  According to an article by TIME, Nike held a 56.7% share of the running shoe market in the first seven months of 2007 (having gained around 10% through their launch of the Nike+ accessory for the iPod).  And a paper published in 2006 by Tufts University states that running shoes are 25% of the athletic shoe market, and the fastest growing category.

Whether the data stated are accurate or not, Nike clearly has a strong stake in the running shoe market.  I discuss the business aspects of Nike’s alternatives and motivations in the face of the rising scientific evidence against motion control designs in a post on Constant Cogitation.  But what does this all mean to a runner, and what should we expect to see in shoe designs and recommendations in the forthcoming years?

"Dude, you should totally join me in fighting the corporate-driven motion control paradigm. And you need more tattoos."

First, I am a firm believer that most important trends that have staying power take longer than expected to materialize, but then have a much bigger effect than anticipated.  This move towards reduced or minimalist footwear designs feels like such a trend.  Just as science eventually doomed cigarette companies to face a fatal long-term decline (at least in the US), it seems set to re-invent the running shoe market, consigning those companies that fail to react to the scrap heap and those that do on a more rapid growth trajectory.

As I stated, this change will take time.  There is too much investment throughout the supply chain, from engineering to production to distribution channels, to allow such a switch to occur quickly and painlessly.  The engineers and product managers will continue to be wed to their “Gels,” “Airs,” and “Waves,” until reality smacks them in the face – it is the heart of The Innovator’s Dilemma.  And the store associate who looks at your shoe wear, watches you walk, or, for the most trained, puts you on a treadmill and observes or records your gait, will resist leaving their pronation control comfort zone, as it would question their own competence to do so.

Change will come when driven by runners.  Now I’m not an expert on biomechanics or shoe design, and would never urge you to change something that works for you simply to glom onto a trend.  But if you suffer from nagging minor (or occasional major) injuries, if you feel your performance is limited by the extra weight you are carrying on your feet, or if you are just the type who likes to experiment with varied approaches, the time (and science) seems right to go ahead and give a reduced shoe design a go.  And Nike seems that it wants to be a leader in helping you move in that direction.  Eventually, the other shoe manufacturers will as well (though none will likely be as extreme in driving the move as Vibram Five Fingers and their impostors).

What do you make of all this (other than your shock at how naïve I was regarding Nike’s market position in running shoes)?  Are you starting to rethink your shoe selections?

Photo credit:  Barefoot Runner by Flickr user JohnKochmanski, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

You may also find these interesting:

• Running Shoe Review – Nike Lunarfly 2
• Shoe Review – Mizuno Wave Precision 11
• Product Review – Yaktrax Pro Traction Cleats
• Another Baby Step towards Less Shoe

Tags: business, equipment, injuries, shoes

Posted in Articles Gear
23 Comments Posted by Greg